Author Queries Journal: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Manuscript: rstb20120166 Q1
Please check the changes made to affiliations 4 and 5.
Q2 Q3
Please specify the term ‘ha. L’ in the sentnce ‘Although mechanized, ...’. Please check the change made to the sentence ‘Both Santare´m and Paragominas, . . .’.
Q4 Q5
Please specify the correct contraction of the author name R.M. Please check the journal title in ref. [7].
Q6 Q7
Please provide the printed pages for refs [12,17]. Please amend the reference to colour in the caption of figure 2, as this figure appear in colour only in online version.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 1
A social and ecological assessment of tropical land-uses at multiple scales: the Sustainable Amazon Network
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
12 13 14 15 16
Research
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Cite this article: Gardner T et al. 2013 A social and ecological assessment of tropical land-uses at multiple scales: the Sustainable Amazon Network. Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0166
25 26 27 28 29 30
One contribution of 18 to a Theme Issue ‘Ecology, economy, and management of an agroindustrial frontier landscape in the southeast Amazon’.
31 32 33 34
Subject Areas: ecology, environmental science
35 36 37 38 39 40
Keywords: tropical forests, land use, sustainability, trade-offs, interdisciplinary research, social – ecological systems
41 42 43 44
Author for correspondence: Toby Gardner e-mail: tobyagardner@gmail.com
45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
Toby Gardner1,2, Joice Ferreira3, Jos Barlow2, Alexander Lees4, Luke Parry2, Ima Ce´lia Guimara˜es Vieira5, Erika Berenguer2, Ricardo Abramovay6, Alexandre Aleixo4, Christian Andretti7, Luiz E. O. C. Araga˜o8, Ivanei Arau´jo4, Williams Souza de A´vila9, Richard D. Bardgett2, Mateus Batistella10, Rodrigo Anzolin Begotti11, Troy Beldini12, Driss Ezzine de Blas13, Rodrigo Fagundes Braga14, Danielle de Lima Braga14, Janaı´na Gomes de Brito7, Plı´nio Barbosa de Camargo6, Fabiane Campos12, Vı´vian Oliveira Campos7, Amanda Cardoso15, Thiago Moreira Cardoso3, Deborah Reis de Carvalho14, Sergio Andre´ Castelani6, Ju´lio Ce´zar Ma´rio Chaul16, Carlos Eduardo Cerri11, Francisco de Assis Costa17, Carla Daniele Furtado da Costa17, Emilie Coudel13, Alexandre Camargo Coutinho18, Deˆnis Cunha16, A´lvaro D’Antona19, Joelma Dezincourt4, Karina Dias20, Mariana Durigan11, Ju´lio Ce´sar Dalla Mora Esquerdo18, Jose´ Feres21, Silvio Frosini de Barros Ferraz11, Amanda Estefaˆnia de Melo Ferreira5, Ana Carolina Fiorini22, Lenise Vargas Flores12, Fa´bio Soares Fraza˜o14, Rachel Garrett23, Alessandra Santos Gomes4, Karoline da Silva Gonc¸alves5, Jose´ Benito Guerrero24, Neusa Hamada7, Robert M. Hughes25, Danilo Carmago Igliori6, Ederson Jesus26, Leandro Juen17, Mie´rcio Jr12, Jose´ Max Barbosa de Oliveira Jr27, Raimundo Cosme de Oliveira Jr2, Carlos Souza Jr28, Phil Kaufmann29, Vanesca Korasaki14, Cecı´lia Gontijo Leal14, Rafael Leita˜o7, Nata´lia Lima15, Fa´tima Lopes15, Reinaldo Lourival30, Ju´lio Neil Cassa Louzada14, Ralph Mac Nally31, Se´bastien Marchand16, Ma´rcia Motta Maue´s2, Fa´tima Moreira14, Carla Morsello6, Na´rgila Moura4, Jorge Nessimian22, Saˆmia Nunes28, Victor Hugo Fonseca Oliveira14, Renata Pardini6, Heloisa Correia Pereira19, Paulo Santos Pompeu14, Carla Rodrigues Ribas14, Felipe Rossetti11, Fernando Augusto Schmidt14, Rodrigo da Silva12, Regina Ce´lia Viana Martins da Silva3, Thiago Fonseca Morello Ramalho da Silva6, Juliana Silveira14, Joa˜o Victor Siqueira28, Teotoˆnio Soares14, Ricardo R. C. Solar16, Nicola Save´rio Holanda Tancredi17, James R. Thomson31, Patrı´cia Carignano Torres6, Fernando Zagury Vaz-deMello32, Ruan Carlo Stulpen Veiga33, Adriano Venturieri3, Cecı´lia Viana5, Diana Weinhold34, Ronald Zanetti14 and Jansen Zuanon7
55 1
56 57 58 59 60
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK 3 Embrapa Amazoˆnia Oriental, Travessa Dr. Ene´as Pinheiro s/n, CP 48, Bele´m, Para´ 66.095-100, Brazil 4 Coordenac¸a˜o de Zoologia, and 5MCTI/Museu Paraense Emı´lio Goeldi, MCT/Museu Paraense Emı´lio Goeldi, Caixa Postal 399, Bele´m, Para´ 66040-170, Brazil 2
Electronic supplementary material is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0166 or via http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org.
61 62 63
& 2013 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:25–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
Q1
ARTICLE IN PRESS 64 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126
Science has a critical role to play in guiding more sustainable development trajectories. Here, we present the Sustainable Amazon Network (Rede Amazoˆnia Sustenta´vel, RAS): a multidisciplinary research initiative involving more than 30 partner organizations working to assess both social and ecological dimensions of land-use sustainability in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. The research approach adopted by RAS offers three advantages for addressing land-use sustainability problems: (i) the collection of synchronized and co-located ecological and socioeconomic data across broad gradients of past and
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:25–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
present human use; (ii) a nested sampling design to aid comparison of ecological and socioeconomic conditions associated with different land uses across local, landscape and regional scales; and (iii) a strong engagement with a wide variety of actors and non-research institutions. Here, we elaborate on these key features, and identify the ways in which RAS can help in highlighting those problems in most urgent need of attention, and in guiding improvements in land-use sustainability in Amazonia and elsewhere in the tropics. We also discuss some of the practical lessons, limitations and realities faced during the development of the RAS initiative so far.
1. Introduction Land-use and land-cover changes associated with agricultural expansion and intensification is the most visible indicator of the human footprint on the biosphere [1,2,3]. Ongoing land-use change is most acute in the tropics [4], with ca 50 000 km2 p.a. of native vegetation being cleared [5]. These changes are driven by increasing resource demands from a larger and wealthier human population, coupled with the effects of increasing economic globalization and land scarcity [6]. The creation and strengthening of more sustainable development trajectories in the twenty-first century depends on our ability to balance rising demands for food, energy, natural resources and the alleviation of hunger and poverty with the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems, and the critical ecosystem services they provide [7,8]. Amazonia represents a major sustainability challenge: as well as being the world’s largest remaining tropical forest, the entire Amazon biome is home to more than 30 million people and provides locally, regionally and globally significant human-welfare benefits, including economic goods (e.g. timber and agricultural products) and non-market ecosystem services, such as climatic regulation and biodiversity conservation [4,9,10]. Rapid social and ecological change has left the future of the Amazon region uncertain [11–13]. In the Brazilian Amazon, in particular, recent reductions in the rate of deforestation, expansion of protected areas, increased market-based demand for more responsible landuse practices, and a strengthening of local and regional governments and civil society organizations provide some cause for guarded optimism that the Amazon economy can be set on a sustainable footing [14–16]. However, we need to ensure the right choices are made as soon as possible, thereby reducing the likelihood of costly or potentially irreversible damage to both social and ecological systems in the region [12,17]. Science can help this process by identifying the problems that need to be addressed first, and assessing the long-term social and ecological implications of land-use alternatives in planning for both regional development and ecological conservation [2,18,19]. While there is already a substantial body of social and ecological knowledge on the Amazon [11,20–22], scientists are often criticized for failing to deliver the evidence most needed to foster sustainability [23]. Criticisms include the fragmented and disciplinary nature of many research projects, a narrow focus on specific ecological or social problems and spatial scales, and a weak connection to local actors and
2
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
75
Universidade de Sa˜o Paulo (USP), Rua da Prac¸a do Relo´gio, 109, Sala 11, Cidade Universita´ria, 05508-050 Sa˜o Paulo, SP, Brazil 7 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazoˆnia (INPA), Avenida Andre´ Arau´jo, 2.936, Petro´polis, 69080-971 Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil 8 College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK 9 Universidade Rural da Amazoˆnia, Rodovia PA 256, km 06, Bairro Nova Conquista, s/n, 68625-000 Paragominas, Para´, Brazil 10 Embrapa Monitoramento por Sate´lite, Avenida Soldado Passarinho, 303, Fazenda Chapada˜o, 13070-115 Campinas, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil 11 Escola Superior de Agricultura ‘Luiz de Queiroz’, Esalq/USP, Universidade de Sa˜o Paulo, Avenida Pa´dua Dias, 11, Sa˜o Dimas, Piracicaba, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil 12 Universidade Federal do Oeste do Para´, Rua Vera Paz, s/n, Bairro Sale´, 68040-250 Santare´m, Para´, Brazil 13 Centre de coope´ration internationale en recherche agronomique pour le de´veloppement (CIRAD), F. Campus International de Baillarguet, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France 14 Universidade Federal de Lavras, Campus Universita´rio, CP 3037, 37200-000 Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil 15 Universidade do Estado do Para´, Rodovia PA-125, s/n, Bairro: Algelim, 68625-000 Paragominas, Para´, Brazil 16 Universidade Federal de Vic¸osa, Avenida P. H. Rolfs, s/n, Centro, 36570-000 Vic¸osa, Minas Gerais, Brazil 17 Universidade Federal do Para´, Rua Augusto Correˆa, s/n, Campus Profissional II, Guama´, 66000-000 Bele´m, Para´, Brazil 18 Embrapa Informa´tica Agropecua´ria, Avenida Andre´ Tosello, 209, Bara˜o Geraldo, 13083-886 Campinas, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil 19 Faculdade de Cieˆncias Aplicadas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rua Pedro Zaccharia, 1300, Cidade Universita´ria, 13484-350 Limeira, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil 20 Universidade Federal de Goia´s, Campus II, 74001-970 Goiaˆnia, Goias, Brazil 21 Instituto de Pesquisa Econoˆmica Aplicada, Avenida Presidente Antoˆnio Carlos, 51, 178 andar, Centro, 20020-010 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 22 Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, CP 68501, 21941-972 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 23 Stanford University, Energy and Environment Building, 4205, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305, USA 24 The Nature Conservancy, Avenida Nazare´, 280, Bairro Nazare´, 66035-170 Bele´m, Para´, Brazil 25 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Amnis Opes Institute, Oregon State University, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA 26 Embrapa Agrobiologia, BR 465, km 7, 23891-000 Serope´dica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 27 Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso (UNEMAT), Br 158, Km 148, 78690-000 Nova Xavantina, Mato Grosso, Brazil 28 IMAZON, Rua Domingos Marreiros, 2020, 66060-160 Bele´m, Para´, Brazil 29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA 30 Ministe´rio de Cieˆncia, Tecnologia e Inovac¸a˜o, Esplanada dos Ministe´rios, Bloco E, 70067-900 Brası´lia, Distrito Federal, Brazil 31 Australian Centre for Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia 32 Universidade Federal Mato Grosso, Avenida Fernando Correa da Costa, s/n, Coxipo´, 78060-900 Cuiaba´, Mato Grosso, Brazil 33 Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rua Miguel de Frias, 9, Icaraı´, 24220-900 Nitero´i, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 34 Department of International Development, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
66
6
ARTICLE IN PRESS 127 128 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:25–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
2. The Sustainable Amazon Network: research design (a) A conceptual framework for assessing land-use sustainability RAS is inspired by the now well-established paradigm of ‘sustainability science’—a science that is focused explicitly on the dynamic interactions between nature and society and is committed to place-based and solution-driven research across multiple scales [27,28]. Making explicit our understanding of the interactions among and between social and ecological phenomena, and their relationship to an overarching sustainability agenda is critical to the effectiveness and transparency of such a research programme. The challenge of realizing a more sustainable development trajectory for the Amazon region lies in identifying, protecting and restoring the balance of ecological and socioeconomic values necessary to maintain the flow of critical ecosystem services and adapt to changing conditions, while also safeguarding the ability to exploit new opportunities for human development. The starting point for any research programme on sustainability is the selection of a set of socio-ecological values that can provide a basis for assessment. Our focus in RAS is on the conservation of forest-dependent biodiversity (terrestrial and aquatic), the conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks, soil and water quality, the provision of agricultural, silvicultural, timber and non-timber forest products, and the protection and betterment of human well-being. From this basis, the RAS research process can then address our primary objectives in helping to quantify and understand some of the social and ecological problems and trajectories faced by the Amazon region, examine interactions and the potential for costly or potentially irreversible impacts, and evaluate the social and ecological costs, benefits and trade-offs associated with proposed management interventions. We view the transition towards sustainability as a guiding vision for continuous improvements in management practices rather than a search for a static blueprint of best practice techniques. Within this framework, we see the role of research as providing both an ongoing measure of management performance and a laboratory for testing new ideas for positive change. Building on earlier work by Collins et al. [19], we present a simple framework of how we view the interacting components of our social–ecological study system, and the hypothesized cause–effect relationships, assumptions and feedbacks that provide a foundation for setting specific research objectives (figure 1). Outcomes measures (i.e. changes in valued attributes, such as native biodiversity, ecosystem service provision and human well-being) are captured in both the social and the ecological dimensions, and through changes in the stocks and flows of ecosystem services. Effects on these measures are felt through the cascading effects of changes in human behaviour
3
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
138
The remainder of this paper focuses on describing the key methodological components and novel features of our research design. We highlight some of the practical lessons and realities faced during the development of the RAS initiative so far, and identify the possible ways in which RAS could have a lasting impact in guiding improvements in land-use sustainability in Amazonia and elsewhere in the tropics.
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
129
institutions that are ultimately responsible for implementing changes in land-use policy and management [22–25]. Here, we present the work of the Sustainable Amazon Network (RAS; Rede Amazoˆnia Sustenta´vel in Portuguese), which is a multidisciplinary research initiative involving more than 30 research institutions and partner organizations. The overall aim of this paper is to present the conceptual and methodological basis of the RAS initiative while also discussing many fundamental challenges that confront research on land-use sustainability across the tropics. Building on the work of a number of earlier and groundbreaking interdisciplinary assessments in the Amazon, including the LBA (Programa de Grande Escala da Biosfera-Atmosfera na Amazoˆnia) and GEOMA (Pesquisas de Desenvolvimento de Me´todos, Modelos e Geoinformac¸a˜o para Gesta˜o Ambiental) research programmes [11,21,26], RAS seeks to address some of the limitations listed above by assessing the sustainability of land-use systems in two dynamic regions of eastern Brazilian Amazonia. The research approach adopted by RAS offers three advantages for addressing this overarching goal: (i) the collection of synchronized and co-located ecological and socioeconomic data across broad gradients of past and present human use and exploitation of natural resources; (ii) a nested sampling design that allows comparisons of the ecological and socioeconomic conditions associated with different land uses to be made across local, landscape and regional scales; (iii) a strong engagement with a wide variety of actors and non-research institutions. Drawing upon the strengths of our approach, RAS aims to make important advances in understanding the sustainability challenges facing Amazonia with regards to four broad objectives. First, we aim to quantify and better understand the ecological consequences of forest clearance, forest degradation and exploitation, and agricultural change (including cattle farming and silviculture) at several spatial scales. We are particularly interested in assessing the relative importance of local- and landscape-scale variables, as well as the extent to which past human impacts can help explain observed patterns in current ecological condition. Our measures of ecological condition include changes in terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, carbon stocks, soil chemical and physical condition and aquatic condition. Our second objective is to examine the factors that determine patterns of land use, management choice, agricultural productivity and profits (and hence opportunity costs for conservation) and patterns of farmer well-being. Beyond input cost, geophysical (e.g. soil type, topography) and location (e.g. road and market access) factors, we recognize the potential importance of social–cultural factors in influencing land-use behaviours, including geographical origin, technical support, credit access, social capital and the importance of supply chains. Third, we plan to use our multidisciplinary assessment to evaluate the relationships between conservation and development objectives and identify potential trade-offs and synergies. Here, we are interested in the relative ecological and socioeconomic costs and benefits of alternative land-use and management choices, and the potential for feedbacks, multiple scale interactions and dependencies and unintended (‘perverse’) outcomes. Last, RAS seeks to help enable future research initiatives to maximize their cost-effectiveness by examining the implications of choices made with respect to variable selection, sampling design, prioritization of research questions and analyses, and approaches for engaging with local actors and institutions and disseminating results.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 190
4
global and regional drivers
191 193
potential management and policy levers: zoning policies, environmental regulation and compliance, responsible farming approaches, climate and biodiversity finance
194 195 196 197 198 199 200 202 203 204
human behaviour land-use, migration, participation and values
205
synthesis and interactions (past and present)
ecological dimension (soil, biogeography, climate)
environmental impacts or stressors
biodiversity outcomes plants, birds, fish, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates
forest loss, land-cover change, fire, logging, multiple degradation events, hunting
206 207 208 209 210
changes in ecosystem services
211 212 213 214 215 216 217
biotically mediated ecosystem processes
access, information, incentives, constraints
human outcomes demography, development, equity
provisioning: agricultural and silvicultural production, extraction of timber and nontimber forest products regulating: carbon sequestration, water quality and stream flow cultural: species conservation, ecotourism and scientific discovery
ecosystem function and habitat services primary productivity, maintenance of soil condition, water quality and nutrient cycling
218 219 220
social–ecological landscape properties land cover and condition, management systems
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232
multiple scales of inter action (property/site | catchment | region)
Figure 1. Conceptual model of study system under investigation by the Sustainable Amazon Network. Adapted from a generic framework presented in Collins et al. [19] to illustrate how we view the interacting components of our social – ecological study system, and the hypothesized cause – effect relationships, contexts (social and ecological dimensions and social – ecological interactions), assumptions and feedbacks between outcome measures (e.g. related to human well-being, biodiversity and ecosystem service provision), impacts and social and ecological processes, which together provide a foundation for setting specific research objectives. Not all influences and feedbacks are of equal importance and no attempt is made in the model to distinguish relative effect sizes. Social–ecological landscape properties are emergent and dynamic changes in landscape features that mediate relationships between social and ecological phenomena. System dynamics play out across multiple spatial scales. Variables listed are those that have been studied by RAS. System attributes and relationships shown in grey are examples of phenomena that are being studied in less detail by RAS or have been inferred from other research.
233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252
and associated environmental impacts on landscape properties and ecosystem functions. Each one of the influence arrows in figure 1 encompasses a set of specific, disciplinary research questions. The importance of diverse human impacts (both faster dynamics (such as fire and logging) and slower dynamics (such as cumulative land-use change and repeated degradation events)) in determining changes in outcome variables is examined using a space-for-time substitution across a highly replicated network of sampling locations and landholdings, coupled with detailed remotely sensed time-series analysis of past land-cover change and forest degradation. A focus of our work is understanding the extent to which landscape properties (often measurable from satellite and secondary data alone and used to compare multiple landscapes) can provide adequate proxies for understanding changes in the sustainability trajectory of the system as a whole. As much as possible, we try to ensure that the interpretation of our results takes account of the spatial scale of observation, and unmeasured factors, including the effects of external drivers, such as climate change and global
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:25–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
markets, on the study system. Last, we seek to characterize the effects of a set of potential management and policy levers on the long-term dynamics and outcomes of the study system (figure 1).
(b) Key Rede Amazoˆnia Sustenta´vel design features RAS is an example of a research initiative that collects matched social and ecological data at multiple scales and of relevance to multiple sustainability problems (see also [29]). A number of features of the research design adopted by RAS offer clear advantages for addressing questions about land-use sustainability and management.
(i) Spatial scale of assessment Much of the existing social and ecological research in the Amazon (and elsewhere) has not been conducted at the most relevant spatial scales for assessing and guiding the development of more sustainable land-use strategies. Research has
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
201
social dimension (institutions, organizations, economics)
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
background: climate, population, policy and income
192
ARTICLE IN PRESS 253 254 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287
(ii) Choice of study regions
288
The RAS study regions of Paragominas and Santare´mBelterra differ both biophysically and in their histories of human occupation and use. By collecting data from two distinct regions of eastern Amazonia, we have a rare opportunity to better understand the extent to which inferences derived from one region can be generalized to another. The modern city of Santare´m, once a centre of pre-Colombian civilization, was founded in 1661, whereas Paragominas was founded as recently as 1959. Recent development of both regions has been closely associated with the construction of federal highways. Northern Santare´m and neighbouring Belterra have been densely settled by small-scale farmers for more than a century. By contrast, Paragominas had a very low population density prior to its colonization by cattle ranchers from southern Brazilian states in the 1950s and 1960s, and the boom in the timber industry during the 1980s and 1990s. Both regions are relatively consolidated, with decreasing rates of deforestation of primary vegetation, although on-going paving of the highway means southern Santare´m will probably experience both increased human colonization and agricultural expansion in the near future. Large-scale, mechanized agriculture became established in both regions only in the early 2000s and has increased rapidly in recent years (usually at the expense of both pastures and secondary forest), currently occupying approximately 40 000 and 60 000 ha in Santare´m and Paragominas, respectively. Paragominas has also witnessed a rapid recent expansion of silviculture (mostly Eucalyptus spp. and Shizolobium amazonicum). Both regions are distinct from the agro-industrial
289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:25–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
264
frontier in Mato-Grosso which is dominated by large-scale 5 mechanized farming primarily for export [32,33]. Although mechanized farming is expanding rapidly in both study regions, in contrast to Mato-Grosso, the majority of properties are less than 1000 ha. L. Moreover, local and regional urban centres Q2 still provide significant markets for cattle, and landscapes are interspersed with a diverse array of densely populated small-holder colonies and agrarian reform settlements. Both Santare´m and Paragominas have recently embarked Q3 upon high-visibility, multi-sectoral sustainability initiatives; specifically, a moratorium on expansion of soya bean from deforested areas in Santare´m, and the foundation of the Municı´pio Verde (Green County) initiative for promoting sustainable land-use systems in Paragominas. These processes have strong support from non-governmental organizations, farmer’s unions and local government and have facilitated the development of RAS by helping us gain trust with local actors and institutions, tailoring the research planning and design towards local priorities and needs, and increasing receptivity towards project results and recommendations. It is not viable to repeat the scale of assessment of the RAS initiative in every tropical forest region around the world. However, by working at multiple scales and in two differing municipalities that encompass many characteristics of eastern Amazonia and elsewhere, such as large areas of extensive cattle pasture, emergent mechanized agriculture and a population that is highly mobile and dominated by small-holder farmers, we believe that our results provide a suitable laboratory for better understanding many of the risks and opportunities facing the development of more sustainable landscapes across the wider region. By concentrating our efforts in two regions that have received particular attention from existing initiatives in sustainable land use our results almost certainly will receive greater exposure to, and engagement with, a wide range of decision makers. Last, a key focus of our work is to employ our uniquely comparable and diverse datasets to identify a subset of cost-effective ecological and social indicators that can help guide applied research and monitoring work in other study regions.
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
255
concentrated either on the entire Amazon basin, which often depends upon very coarse-scale data and obscures critically important inter- and intra-regional processes and interactions [30], or on detailed work on a few intensively studied research sites, which captures only a tiny fraction of the variability in environmental and land-use gradients that drive much social and ecological change (see [10] in the case of biodiversity research). While both large- and small-scale research is necessary, much more work is needed at the ‘mesoscale’ level (i.e. spanning 100s km and coincident with the scale of individual municipalities in Brazil). The RAS assessment was conducted in two study regions in the Brazilian state of Para´: the municipality of Paragominas (1.9 million hectares) and part of the municipalities of Santare´m and Belterra (ca 1 million hectares; figure 2). There are several important advantages to working at this spatial scale. The socioeconomic and ecological data collected by RAS cover broad gradients of change in both ecological (e.g. natural factors, such as soil type and the extent of forest loss, degradation and land-use intensification) and socioeconomic variables (e.g. rural population density, property size, wealth and market access), thereby affording more confidence in the general relevance of the patterns, drivers and trade-offs inferred from sample data [31]. In addition, a focus at the mesoscale facilitates assessment of the importance of both local (farm) and regional (state and biome) processes and objectives in a way that work focused on either smaller or larger scales cannot readily achieve. Finally, municipalities (or the equivalent scale of administration elsewhere) are also the administrative unit with arguably the greatest awareness of local pressures on natural resources and social services, and the greatest responsibility for institutional linkages between local communities and states or regions [30].
(iii) Sampling design The RAS sampling design is based on a sample of 18 third- or fourth-order hydrological catchments (ca 5000 ha) in each region. Catchments are distributed over a gradient of forest cover in 2009 (10–100% in Santare´m; 6–100% in Paragominas; figure 2), with detailed ecological and socioeconomic information being collected from study transects and individual farms within each catchment (figure 2; electronic supplementary material). Advantages to this nested design, include the potential for determining the relative importance of drivers and constraints that operate at different spatial scales, and the capacity to make connections between local/individual (farm) and larger scale/public (municipality and state) conservation and development objectives (table 1). Sampling at the catchment scale also permits the integration of terrestrial and aquatic information, and the assessment of changes in ecological and socioeconomic variables that are highly correlated at local scales, such as cumulative deforestation, economic activities and human population density. The 36 study catchments (figure 2; electronic supplementary material, figures S1 and S2) were selected to capture the full deforestation gradient, while incorporating priority areas identified by members of
ARTICLE IN PRESS 317
(a)
319 320
catchments
321 322 323 324 325
Paragominas
326 328 329
(b)
(c) SantarémBelterra
330 331 332 333 334 335
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
327
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
318
6
% forest cover
316
336 337
% forest cover
338 339 340 341 342
catchments
343 344 345 346 347 348 349
Figure 2. The Sustainable Amazon Network nested sampling design. Distribution of study catchments (white) is shown within both Paragominas (a) and SantaremBelterra (b). Black circles show location of streams sampled during the aquatic assessment. White bar charts show distribution of remnant forest cover across catchments. (c) The distribution of study transects (black lines) and the principle household of producer landowners (triangles) in the catchment of Boa Esperanca in Santare´m. Land-use classification derived from Landsat 2010 image, showing primary forest (dark green), secondary forest (light green), deforested areas (orange) and major water bodies (dark blue). (Online version in colour.) Q7
350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378
the municipal governments and farming communities (e.g. agrarian reform settlements, traditional rural communities and areas of recent agricultural expansion and development). Ecological data were collected from a sample of 300 m study transects in every catchment, distributed using a stratifiedrandom sampling design, where a standard density of transects (1 per 400 ha) was distributed across the catchment in proportion to the percentage cover of total forest and production areas (encompassing agriculture, pasture, fruiticulture and silviculture; figure 2). For example, if half of the landscape was covered by forest, then half of the transects were allocated to forest. In catchments with very low levels of forest cover we sampled additional forest transects to ensure a minimum sample of three transects in all catchments. Within each of these two land-use categories (forest and non-forest), sample transects were distributed randomly with a minimum separation of 1500 m to minimize spatial dependence. The use of this stratified-random sampling design provided a balance between the need for: (i) proportional sampling of forest and non-forest areas, and a sufficient density and coverage of sample points to capture major differences in landscape structure and composition among different catchments; and (ii) a well-dispersed set of sampling points across forest and non-forest areas that captured important environmental heterogeneities within each catchment and across the region as a whole, helping to minimize problems of pseudo replication. Aquatic sampling was conducted across 50 stream sites,
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:25–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
each 150 m long in each region, with samples distributed along a gradient of prior human impact based primarily on the amount of remnant forest cover in the upstream catchment (and not constrained to terrestrial study catchments). Socioeconomic data were collected from all rural properties with an ecological study transect. Owing to the stratified design, transects tended to be in larger properties and underrepresent smaller farms. Therefore, we mapped all rural producers in each catchment and sub-sampled a maximum of 20 randomly selected properties (with greater than or equal to 1 ha and producing in 2009). Given our focus on the producer community, this sample excluded urban and periurban areas, but could include some of the same farms in the transectbased sample. This combination of sampling techniques enables us to describe the dominant socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of different producers, and to provide a detailed socioeconomic profile of the farming population in each catchment (figure 2). Where rural properties had more than one household (e.g. where there are workers or relatives living on the property) additional surveys on household demography, origins and well-being were made according to the total number of residences (table 1).
(iv) Social and ecological field sampling RAS project members conducted a detailed assessment of ecological and socioeconomic patterns and processes in
ARTICLE IN PRESS 379
Table 1. Remote-sensing, socioeconomic and environmental data sampled by the Sustainable Amazon Network.
7
380
summary characteristics
382 383 384 385 386
variable type
variables
remote sensing
biannual land-use classification (since 1988 in Paragominas and 1990 in Santare´m-Belterra); age of deforestation; frequency and timing of forest degradation events; age and frequency of secondary forest regeneration; mapping of fire and logging scars;
387 389
socioeconomic
property sizes in socioeconomic survey
number
area
number
area
surveyed (ha)
392 393 394
surveyed (ha)
0 –25 ha 25 – 100 ha
44 47
936 3030
150 110
1656 7587
398
100– 300 ha 300– 1000 ha
20 16
3577 9222
20 21
3837 12 397
399
over 1000 ha
44
238 979
16
62 978
171 223
255 744
317 400
88 455
402
total number of properties total number of households
403
survey modules
property characteristics; household characteristics, demography and well being; productivity and inputs of different
395 396 397
400 401
404 405
production systems; fire use and impacts; forest use (and
406 407 408
soil
409
physical structure, soil fertility, total C and N, d13C and d15N, phospholipid fatty acids analysis of soil microbes, microbial biomass, soil water
410 411
soluble nutrients, soil emissions of CO2, NH4, N2O
412 413 414
respectively. Five replicates from each transect and at three depths (0 – 10, 10 – 20, 20 – 30 cm). Microbial and PLFA data, soil water soluble nutrients and soil gases emissions for selected catchments from Santare´m only.
biomass and vegetation structure (including dead wood,
44 359 stems measured
38 584 stems measured
417
leaf litter and structural measurements) tree, liana and palm diversity
and identified 1052 species,
and identified 1118 species,
418
disturbance
observations of fire and logging scars and other damage on all stems
birds
364 species
377 species
dung beetles
85 species, 53 113 specimens
99 species, 40 664 specimens
ants
pending
430 species, 41 296 specimens
427
orchid bees
pending
pending
428
ecosystem functions
n.a.
dung removal, soil turbation, and seed
415 416
vegetation and
hunting) 3120 and 2580 soil samples from Paragominas and Santare´m,
carbon stocks
419 420 421
terrestrial fauna
422 423 424 425 426
429 430
dispersal by dung beetles, and seed
431 432 433 434
aquatic system
physical habitat
435
habitat complexity and cover, riparian vegetation, channel-
436 437 438
predation by ants 237 measurements relating to channel morphology, substrate,
aquatic quality
439
riparian interactions, and disturbance physical and chemical parameters of water (dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, temperature, nitrate and ammonia)
440
(Continued.)
441
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:25–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
391
Santarem
indices of deforestation and forest regeneration trajectories; cover of mechanized agriculture since 2000 (MODIS images); landuse intensity by hydrological distances between stream networks and forest remnants
388 390
Paragominas
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
381
ARTICLE IN PRESS 442 443
8
Table 1. (Continued.) summary characteristics
445 446 447 448 449
variable type
Paragominas
Santarem
fish
112 species, 18 669 individuals
71 species, 7990 individuals
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera
49 genera, 13 748 individuals
54 genera, 7937 individuals
Heteroptera
nine genera, 1847
14 genera, 543 individuals
Odonata
individuals 97 species, 1990
68 species, 1849
individuals
individuals
450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498
both study regions between April 2010 and August 2011 (table 1 and figure 2; electronic supplementary material). Choices of sample variables and methods were based on our research priorities, cost-effectiveness and the need to collect a large number of representative samples ([34]; table 1). Sampling of terrestrial biodiversity focused on trees and lianas, birds, dung beetles, ants, bees and soil microbes. In a subset of catchments, additional measurements were made of ecosystem functions mediated by beetles and ants (including dung burial, seed dispersal and seed predation). Aquatic biodiversity (and metrics of aquatic condition) consisted of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages (table 1). Ecosystem service supply was measured for carbon stocks (above- and below-ground) and the maintenance of soil condition ( physical and chemical properties). The habitat structure of both terrestrial and aquatic environments was assessed using a combination of measures of canopy openness, vegetation structure, dead wood and leaf litter, and the morphology and substrate of stream channels. Socioeconomic data were collected on the characteristics of study properties (such as land cover, legal status) and producer households (including household demography, producer origins, income, access to services, subjective measures of wellbeing), costs and productivity of different production systems (livestock, arable and perennial crops, silviculture and timber harvesting), fire use and effects, and the benefits and costs of maintaining forest reserves (including the extraction of timber and non-timber forest products, and risks of invasion and theft; table 1). Legacy effects of past human impacts are known to be important for both ecological and social systems, but have been poorly studied to date [35,36]. Remote-sensing analyses were based on a 22-year time series and provide information on changes in land use, forest extent, timing and frequency of forest degradation and age of regeneration (see the electronic supplementary material, table S2). These data provide the basis for validating remotely sensed indicators of ecological and land-use change with direct field observations (e.g. retention and loss of forest biodiversity, forest fires and land-mechanization).
499 500 501 502 503 504
3. Practical lessons and realities from the field The acquisition of extensive and reliable knowledge about the Amazon is dependent on research networks that can
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:26–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
effectively exploit economies of scale in shared resources and technical expertise, recognize and make explicit interconnections and feedbacks among sub-disciplines, and increase the temporal and spatial scale of existing studies [22]. However, building effective multi-sector and interdisciplinary research programmes at large spatial scales remains one of the most difficult challenges facing sustainability science [37]. One of the greatest challenges of the RAS project has been developing and maintaining engagement with partners from multiple sectors, institutions, local governments, civil society organizations and farmer associations. More than half of the remaining forest in the Amazon lies within private land [25], and one of the novel aspects of RAS is the collection of data from complex landscapes with multiple owners that encompass a broad spectrum of culture, wealth and education. Establishing contact, building a minimum level of trust, and securing permissions from more than 200 private landowners across the 36 study catchments incurred significant costs in time and resources. This was especially difficult in areas with a legacy of conflict over deforestation and the exploitation of natural resources. Such ‘transaction costs’ are rarely factored into, or supported by funders of major research programmes. Despite the challenges, most landowners recognized the value of research in strengthening the evidence basis for what are otherwise largely rhetorical and highly politicized debates regarding the effects and drivers of land-use change. The diversity of institutional partners that make up RAS, including local organizations, and those directly concerned with agricultural development and local conservation initiatives, was critically important in building trust. While the establishment of meaningful partnerships with very different types of landowners (including some of the poorest and richest farmers in the study regions) was critical for the success of RAS, it was also important to avoid over-promising and over-committing on the benefits to individual land owners from project outcomes. Considerable care was taken to manage expectations by distinguishing clearly the purpose of research from rural development and agricultural extension, and presenting realistic timetables for project participation and the dissemination of results. Maintaining a meaningful level of engagement with our network of local partners is critical to help maximize the relevance of our analyses of project data to local sustainability problems [23]. We are keenly aware that the difficulties inherent in giving adequate attention to the needs and problems facing
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
variables
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
444
ARTICLE IN PRESS 505 506 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567
4. Next steps: guiding improvements in land-use sustainability Work to address our first two objectives is ongoing in many disciplines in RAS to assess and better understand the ecological and socioeconomic consequences of land-use and landscape changes, with synthesis analyses of tradeoffs and scenarios scheduled from 2013. We hope that the outcomes from RAS can help guide improvements in landuse policy and management in several ways. At the simplest level, the quantification of deleterious trends in valued attributes (e.g. declines in forest biodiversity, ecosystem service production and socioeconomic values), and the identification of key stressors can both help to identify management priorities. A clearer understanding of spatial patterns of ecological
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:26–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
9
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
516
and socioeconomic condition is fundamental for understanding the appropriate locations, scale, starting conditions and potential constraints associated with any future changes in management actions [40]. Such basic information is still lacking for much of the Amazon region. RAS datasets can help reconcile social–ecological objectives and reveal trade-offs between farming and conservation at multiple spatial scales by combining data on socioeconomic and ecological values. One prominent debate concerns the effectiveness of alternative approaches for attempting to balance conservation and agricultural activities through changes in agricultural productivity and farming techniques, often referred to as land-sparing versus land-sharing [41]. Understanding of this general problem is limited by a lack of data on the conservation value of areas of remaining native vegetation available for conservation investment that are in differing stages of degradation or regeneration, farm-scale differences in agricultural productivity and other socioeconomic variables related to human well-being and poverty, and landscape-scale influences on local ecological and socioeconomic properties. RAS data can make a potentially important contribution to the development of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDDþ) initiatives [42], recognizing that we currently have a very poor understanding of the relative ecological and socioeconomic costs and benefits of alternative forest conservation policies (e.g. avoided deforestation versus avoided degradation and forest restoration activities) and the interaction between such policies and the agricultural sector [43]. Data and results from RAS ultimately aim to contribute towards more sustainable land-use systems in Amazonia in five overlapping areas, namely the development of: (i) best practice recommendations for sustainable intensification and responsible agriculture, particularly in the cattle-ranching sector; (ii) cost-effective approaches to achieving compliance with environmental legislation, especially in Brazilian Forest Law; (iii) strategies for investment in forest conservation and restoration through payment for ecosystem service schemes, and particularly carbon finance; (iv) strategies for promoting fire-free agriculture; and (v) municipal-level ecological-economic zoning processes. We seek to identify potential opportunities and motivations for more sustainable development strategies in eastern Amazonia and elsewhere by combining the quantitative foundation of our sustainability assessment with input from stakeholders and work in the political and social sciences [44]. We hope that our data will be helpful to assess how changes in management incentives or regulatory conditions will influence relative ecological and socioeconomic costs and benefits. However, we also recognize that win –win solutions are rare and often misleading. Given this, our work seeks to give explicit consideration to possible conflicts, compromises and synergies among multiple objectives, unexpected interactions and feedbacks, and the broader political and institutional context [45]. Ensuring that the work being undertaken by RAS goes beyond science and successfully bridges the science-policy divide is both extremely challenging and unpredictable. There are at least three areas where we hope that our approach can help to increase opportunities for informing development and conservation decision makers. First, our interdisciplinary, meso-scale and place-based research approach increases the likelihood that our results are relevant and applicable to regional problems. Second, we believe that to be most effective
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
507
local communities can increase the chance of drawing inappropriate conservation and development recommendations from our work. We are wary of presenting and interpreting trade-offs too simply, and we acknowledge that simplified quantitative analyses and narratives that only take account of a limited set of attributes can obscure important dynamics and dimensions of value, often resulting in the marginalization of some interest groups [38]. Although commonplace in research projects such risks are rarely made explicit. Within the RAS research network, we encountered many of the problems faced by other multidisciplinary projects, including the need to overcome differences in values, language and modes of thinking among disciplines [22,24]. There are no easy answers to such challenges, though we have found that co-location of researchers from different disciplines within the same field teams, use of a shared online management platform and group exercises (such as participation in conference symposia and writing this paper) have all helped promote constructive dialogue. RAS has its origins in three previously independent research projects that were amalgamated, together with more partners and funding sources into a single initiative with shared goals, budget and management structure. While this historical trajectory led inevitably to a more complex funding and communication system, the resulting strong sense of ownership shared by many project members often led to a more open, interactive and democratic decision making process during project planning and execution. Many of the greatest challenges in developing RAS arose from mundane problems of coordinating the collection, processing and analysis of data. There is a need for continual reassessment of the value and purpose of new measurements or additional samples, and the extent to which more data are necessary to address the priority questions. Cost-effectiveness in time and resources are often ignored in conservation research (e.g. in biodiversity surveys; [34,39]), yet the effectiveness of research would be significantly improved if these considerations were consistently taken into account in project planning and development. We suggest that complex projects such as RAS establish ‘stopping rules’, both in the collection of more field samples and in cutting losses in areas where progress is slow or negligible. The marginal costs of more field data may appear to be little, but they must take account the costs of laboratory and analysis work, and the transaction costs of managing increasing project complexity.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 568 569 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591
This paper is dedicated to the late Manoel Aviz do Nascimento (‘Nego’) whose assistance to all aspects of RAS work in Santare´m was so invaluable. We are grateful to the following for financial support; Instituto Nacional de Cieˆncia e Tecnologia—Biodiversidade e Uso da Terra na Amazoˆnia (CNPq 574008/2008-0), Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecua´ria—Embrapa (SEG: 02.08.06.005.00, and 01.05.01.003.05), the UK government Darwin Initiative (17-023), The Nature Conservancy, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) (NE/F01614X/1, NE/G000816/1, NE/F015356/2 and NE/ Q4 l018123), the Brazilian Science Council CNPq (477583/2009-1), the Fulbright Commission (RH), Sa˜o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) (2011/19108-0), and the Brazilian Coordenac¸a˜o de Aperfeic¸oamento de Pessoal de Nı´vel Superior (CAPES). R.M. and J.R.T. were supported by Australian Research Council Grant DP120100797. We also thank the farmers and workers unions of Santare´m, Belterra and Paragominas and all collaborating private landowners and local government officials for their support. More information about RAS can be found at www.redeamazoniasustentavel.org.
592 593 594 595
References
596 597
1.
598 599 600Q6
2.
601 602 603
3.
604 605 606 607 608
4.
609 610Q6 611
5.
612 613 614 615
6.
616 617 618 619
7.
620 621 622Q5 623
8.
624 625 626 627 628 629
9.
Rockstrom J et al. 2009 A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472– 475. (doi:10.1038/ 461472a) Foley JA et al. 2011 Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337 –342. (doi:10.1038/ nature10452) Nkonya E, Karsenty A, Msangi S, Souza CM, Shah M, vom Braun J, Galford G, Park S. 2012 Sustainable land use for the 21st century. New York, NY: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Department for Sustainable Development. FAO. 2011 The State of Forests in the Amazon Basin, Congo Basin and Southeast Asia. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Administration, UN. Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV. 2010 Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8650 –8655. (doi:10.1073/ pnas.0912668107) Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P. 2011 Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3465 – 3472. (doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108) Steffen W et al. 2011 The anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship. SciencesNew York 40, 739 –761. (doi:10.1007/s13280-0110185-x) Godfray HCJ et al. 2010 Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science (New York N.Y.) 327, 812–818. (doi:10.1126/science.1185383) Malhi Y, Roberts JT, Betts RA, Killeen TJ, Li W, Nobre CA. 2007 Climate change, deforestation and the fate of the Amazon. Science (New York N.Y.) 319, 169–172. (doi:10.1126/science.1146961)
10. Peres CA, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Jansen J, Michalski F, Lees AC, Vieira ICG, Moreira FMD, Feeley K. 2010 Biodiversity conservation in human-modified Amazonian forest landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2314 –2327. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.021) 11. Davidson EA et al. 2012 The Amazon basin in transition. Nature 481, 321 –328. (doi:10.1038/ nature10717) 12. Gardner TA. 2013 The Amazon in transition: the challenge of transforming the world’s largest tropical forest biome into a sustainable socialecological system. In Addressing tipping points (eds T O’Riordan, T Lenton, I Christie). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 13. Andersen L, Granger C, Reis E, Weinhold D, Wunder S. 2002 The dynamics of deforestation and economic growth in the Brazilian Amazon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 14. Nepstad D et al. 2009 Environment: the end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science (New York N.Y.) 326, 1350–1351. (doi:10.1126/ science.1182108) 15. Nepstad DC, McGrath DG, Soares-Filho B. 2011 Systemic conservation, REDD, and the future of the Amazon Basin. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1113– 1116. (doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01784.x) 16. Hecht SB. 2011 From eco-catastrophe to zero deforestation? Interdisciplinarities, politics, environmentalisms and reduced clearing in Amazonia. Environ. Conserv. 39, 4 –19. (doi:10. 1017/S0376892911000452) 17. Boyd E. 2013 Managing global tipping points: exploring the adaptive cycle metaphor and
630
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:26–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
10
18.
19.
20. 21.
22.
23.
24.
institutional responses to climate shocks. In Addressing tipping points (eds T O’Riordan, T LentonI Christie). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Brussaard L, Caron P, Campbell B, Lipper L, Mainka S, Rabbinge R, Babin D, Pulleman M. 2010 Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: scientific challenges for a new agriculture. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 2, 34– 42. (doi:10. 1016/j.cosust.2010.03.007) Collins SL et al. 2011 An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecological research. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 351 –357. (doi:10.1890/ 100068) Becker BL. 2011 Amazoˆnia: Geopolı´tica na virada do III mileˆnio. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Garamond. Keller M, Gash J, Dias PS, Bustamante M (eds) 2009 Amazonia and Global Change: a synthesis of LBA research. Washington: American Geophysical Union. Barlow J et al. 2010 Using learning networks to understand complex systems: a case study of biological, geophysical and social research in the Amazon. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 86, 457–474. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00155.x) Lahsen M, Nobre CA. 2007 Challenges of connecting international science and local level sustainability efforts: the case of the large-scale biosphere– atmosphere experiment in Amazonia. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 62 –74. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10. 005) Perz SG et al. 2010 Crossing boundaries for environmental science and management:
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
579
in this process requires innovative methods for interacting with different sectors and contributing, not only to the delivery of policy-relevant research outputs as outlined in this paper, but also to broader efforts to build the capacity and understanding necessary to create a more sustainable development trajectory for the Amazon region. We hope that the work of RAS can make a small contribution towards this enormous challenge.
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
570
the process of knowledge exchange should occur across as broad and diverse set of actors as possible. Here, the participation of such a large group of (mostly Brazilian) students and researchers on the one hand, with a large and diverse array of non-research partners and associates (including conservation organizations, farmers groups, government agencies and individual landowners) on the other has provided the basis for multiple ongoing dialogues about our research objectives and preliminary findings. Knowledge exchange should not be limited to high-level executive summaries for policy makers but must exploit opportunities for shared learning and dissemination of ideas at all levels. Last, we are developing an impact strategy that can help to target the presentation and discussion of key results through appropriate media to specific audiences and demands at local, regional and national levels. Sustainability science needs to balance the often-conflicting timetables of research and policy processes. As scientists we strive to ensure the reliability, intellectual credit and independence of our work; a process that often requires a lot of time. However, to influence the policy process effectively, our experience is that the research process also needs to be able to respond to limited and often unpredictable opportunities for contributing to decisions on management and policy. Engaging
ARTICLE IN PRESS 631 632 634
25.
635 636 637 638 639 640
26.
641 643 644 645 646 647
27.
648 649 650 651
28.
652 653 654 655 656
29.
657 658 659 660 661 662 663
30.
664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693
rstb20120166—7/3/13—21:26–Copy Edited by: Mahalakshmi S.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
25, 259 –264. (doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010. 01608.x) Hughes RM, Peck D. 2008 Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. J. North American Benthol. Soc. 27, 837–859. (doi:10.1899/ 08-028.1) Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-dewenter I, Thies C. 2005 Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity: ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857– 874. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x) Phalan B, Balmford A, Green RE, Scharlemann JPW. 2011 Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy 36, S62–S71. (doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.008) Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (eds) 2012 Analysing REDDþ: challenges and choices. CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia. Beddington JR et al. 2013 What next for agriculture after Durban? Science 335, 290–298. (doi:10.1126/ science.1217941) Le Tourneau F-M, Marchand G, Greissing A, Nasuti S, Droulers M, Bursztyn M, Le´na P, Dubreuil V. 2013 The DURAMAZ indicator system: a crossdisciplinary comparative tool for assessing ecological and social changes in the Amazon. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120475. (doi:10.1098/rstb. 2012.0475) McShane TO et al. 2011 Hard choices: making tradeoffs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144, 966–972. (doi:10. 1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038)
11
Phil Trans R Soc B 20120166
642
31. McIntire EJB, Fajardo A. 2009 Beyond description: the active and effective way to infer processes from spatial patterns. Ecology 90, 46 –56. (doi:10.1890/ 07-2096.1) 32. DeFries R, Herold M, Verchot L, Macedo M, Shimabukuro Y. 2013 Export-oriented deforestation in Mato Grosso: harbinger or exception for other tropical forests? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120173. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0173) 33. VanWey LK, Spera S, de Sa R, Mahr D, Mustard JF. 2013 Socioeconomic development and agricultural intensification in Mato Grosso. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120168. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0168) 34. Gardner TA et al. 2008 The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecol. Lett. 11, 139 –50. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01133.x) 35. Gardner Ta, Barlow J, Chazdon R, Ewers RM, Harvey Ca, Peres Ca, Sodhi NS. 2009 Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecol. Lett. 12, 561 –582. (doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009. 01294.x) 36. Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR. 2009 Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 253–278. (doi:10. 1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707) 37. Carpenter SR et al. 2009 Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 1305–1312. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0808772106) 38. Hirsch PD, Adams WM, Brosius JP, Zia A, Bariola N, Dammert JL. 2011 Acknowledging conservation trade-offs and embracing complexity. Conserv. Biol.
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org
633
combining interdisciplinary, interorganizational and international collaboration. Environ. Conserv. 37, 419–431. (doi:10.1017/S0376892910000810) Ferreira J, Pardini R, Metzger JP, Fonseca CR, Pompeu PS, Sparovek G, Louzada J. 2012 Towards environmentally sustainable agriculture in Brazil: challenges and opportunities for applied ecological research. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 535–541. (doi:10.1111/j. 1365-2664.2012.02145.x) Toled o de PM, Vieira ICG, Caˆmara G, Nobre CA. 2007 Integrating environmental and social agendas: the experience of the Amazonian networks LBA and GEOMA. In Communicating global change science to society (eds H Tiessen, M Brklacich, G Breulmann, RSC Menezes), pp. 109 –118. New York, NY: Island Press. Clark WC, Dickson NM. 2003 Sustainability science: the emerging research paradigm. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 8059–8061. (doi:10.1073/pnas. 1231333100) Carpenter SR et al. 2012 Program on ecosystem change and society: an international research strategy for integrated social– ecological systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 4, 134 –138. (doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.001) Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S. 2011 Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford, FL: Oxford University Press. Brondizio ES, Moran EF. 2012 Level-dependent deforestation trajectories in the Brazilian Amazon from 1970 to 2001. Popul. Environ. 34, 69 –85. (doi:10.1007/s11111-011-0159-8)